Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Formal Matters
Applicant's response, filed 23 December 2025, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
This application has been transferred within the Office as a result of Examiner MacGregor’s reassignment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 have been rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed for Application No. JP2022-101987 on 08/09/2023.
The instant application therefore claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 06/24/2022 claiming benefit to JP2022-101987.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-9 are drawn to a system , which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite a system for charging.
These independent claims recite the following steps best characterized as mathematical concepts under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) citing the abstract idea grouping for mathematical concepts in general:
calculate respective approximate curves of the pieces of charging data; and
horizontally flip each of the calculated approximate curves and perform replotting with respect to an extrapolation point where charging electric power becomes zero, 4estimate a charging curve in which values of the charging electric power detected by the detector lie on the curve;
estimate a power feedable time during which the power feeding system is able to feed power during an ongoing charging operation from the power feeding system to the storage battery, based on the charging curve by using the values of the charging electric power detected by the detector
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as representing mathematical relationships - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Dependent claim 2 recites, in part, estimate a charging curve indicating a change in the charging electric power, based on the approximate curves calculated based on the pieces of charging data, by using the values of the charging electric power detected by the detector, estimate the power feedable time based on the charging curve, and further estimate remaining storage battery power of the power storage device, based on the charging curve.
Dependent claim 3 recites, in part, wherein the pieces of charging data comprise data generated within a predetermined period.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, wherein the pieces of charging data comprise data generated within a predetermined period.
Dependent claim 5 recites, in part, wherein the pieces of charging data further comprise data indicating a temporal change in charging electric power supplied from the power feeding system to another storage battery that is different from the storage battery and is of a same type as the storage battery.
Dependent claim 6 recites, in part, wherein the pieces of charging data further comprise data indicating a temporal change in charging electric power supplied from the power feeding system to another storage battery that is different from the storage battery and is of a same type as the storage battery.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same mathematical concept abstract idea grouping as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claims 1 and 9 recite a detector/sensor. The specification defines the sensor and detector as an electric power sensor (instant specification in ¶ 0049) but provides no details or structure regarding the functioning of the electric power sensor. The use of a detector/sensor, in this case to detect, multiple times, charging electric power supplied to a storage battery, only recites the detector/sensor as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites one or more processors and one or more memories storing instructions. Claim 9 recites a circuit. Claim 7 recites a storage configured to hold the pieces of charging data; and a registration unit configured to generate charging data based on the data indicating the temporal change in the charging electric power detected by the detector, and register the generated charging data in the storage. Claim 8 recites a storage configured to hold the pieces of charging data, wherein the one or more memories store instructions that cause the one or more processors to generate charging data based on the data indicating the temporal change in the charging electric power detected by the detector, and register the generated charging data in the storage. The use of the computer and corresponding hardware amounts to a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Claims 1 and 9 recite control a charging operation performed from a power feeding system comprising a power storage device to the storage battery. Claims 1 and 9 recite end the charging operation in response to the estimated power feedable time being less than a predetermined time. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims amounts to sending the charging signal data over a network to a disparate charging device referred to as “the power feeding station” – see at least the instant specification in ¶ 0110-121 and ¶ 0131-135. Therefore, the limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves as output of the data determined from the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant post-solution activity that amounts to post-solution output) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 recites one or more processors and one or more memories storing instructions. Claim 9 recites a circuit. Claim 7 recites a storage configured to hold the pieces of charging data; and a registration unit configured to generate charging data based on the data indicating the temporal change in the charging electric power detected by the detector, and register the generated charging data in the storage. Claim 8 recites a storage configured to hold the pieces of charging data, wherein the one or more memories store instructions that cause the one or more processors to generate charging data based on the data indicating the temporal change in the charging electric power detected by the detector, and register the generated charging data in the storage.
Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Claims 1 and 9 recite a detector/sensor at a high level of generality with no additional structure or hardware regarding the collection of the electric power supplies to the storage battery. The courts have decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claims 1 and 9 recite control a charging operation performed from a power feeding system comprising a power storage device to the storage battery. Claims 1 and 9 recite end the charging operation in response to the estimated power feedable time being less than a predetermined time. The courts have decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-9 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The ordered combination of limitations in independent claims 1 and 9 reciting: calculate respective approximate curves of the pieces of charging data; and horizontally flip each of the calculated approximate curves and perform replotting with respect to an extrapolation point where charging electric power becomes zero, estimate a charging curve in which values of the charging electric power detected by the detector lie on the curve; and estimate a power feedable time during which the power feeding system is able to feed power during an ongoing charging operation from the power feeding system to the storage battery, based on the charging curve is free of the prior art.
The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
Chan et al. (US 2019/0277917) teaching on battery discharge optimal matching curve analysis from previous discharge cycles for estimating a state of charge in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0040-41, ¶ 0046-48, and ¶ 0065-67
Lin et al., SOH Estimation and SOC Recalibration of Lithium-Ion Battery with Incremental Capacity Analysis & Cubic Smoothing Spline, 167 (9) J of the Electrochemical Society (2020) teaching on incremental capacity analysis utilizing peak estimation for state of charge calibration for a lithium ion battery in the § Results—Proposed Feature and Its Potential Application on p. 9-10 and in § Discussion on p. 13
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the instant claims recite a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment via triggering a specific control action by a defined criteria. Examiner disagrees. The claims as currently recited merely require a networked device to send data over a network configured to control a charging operation. Without positively claiming the power feeding stating and the corresponding cessation of the charging by the device itself, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims amounts to sending the charging signal data over a network to a disparate charging device referred to as “the power feeding station” – see at least the instant specification in ¶ 0110-121 and ¶ 0131-135, see MPEP § 2106.05(e) discussing how Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4. The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184, 187, 209 USPQ at 7, 8. In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014). In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85.
Applicant then asserts that the ordered combination of the additional elements is not well understood, routine, or conventional. Examiner disagrees – the generic description of the “detector”/sensor for collecting and transmitting data, the computer and corresponding hardware for analyzing the data, and outputting the determination over a network is a conventional combination of additional elements. The novelty of the abstract idea is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 103 rejections of claim 1-9 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights